The Mistrust of Science

[progressoid]

If this place has done its job—and I suspect it has—you’re all scientists now. Sorry, English and history graduates, even you are, too. Science is not a major or a career. It is a commitment to a systematic way of thinking, an allegiance to a way of building knowledge and explaining the universe through testing and factual observation. The thing is, that isn’t a normal way of thinking. It is unnatural and counterintuitive. It has to be learned. Scientific explanation stands in contrast to the wisdom of divinity and experience and common sense. Common sense once told us that the sun moves across the sky and that being out in the cold produced colds. But a scientific mind recognized that these intuitions were only hypotheses. They had to be tested.

~~~

The sociologist Gordon Gauchat studied U.S. survey data from 1974 to 2010 and found some deeply alarming trends. Despite increasing education levels, the public’s trust in the scientific community has been decreasing. This is particularly true among conservatives, even educated conservatives. In 1974, conservatives with college degrees had the highest level of trust in science and the scientific community. Today, they have the lowest.

Today, we have multiple factions putting themselves forward as what Gauchat describes as their own cultural domains, “generating their own knowledge base that is often in conflict with the cultural authority of the scientific community.” Some are religious groups (challenging evolution, for instance). Some are industry groups (as with climate skepticism). Others tilt more to the left (such as those that reject the medical establishment). As varied as these groups are, they are all alike in one way. They all harbor sacred beliefs that they do not consider open to question.

~~~

The challenge of what to do about this—how to defend science as a more valid approach to explaining the world—has actually been addressed by science itself. Scientists have done experiments. In 2011, two Australian researchers compiled many of the findings in “The Debunking Handbook.” The results are sobering. The evidence is that rebutting bad science doesn’t work; in fact, it commonly backfires. Describing facts that contradict an unscientific belief actually spreads familiarity with the belief and strengthens the conviction of believers. That’s just the way the brain operates; misinformation sticks, in part because it gets incorporated into a person’s mental model of how the world works. Stripping out the misinformation therefore fails, because it threatens to leave a painful gap in that mental model—or no model at all.

So, then, what is a science believer to do?...http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-mistrust-of-science

[PJMcK]

1. What a great speech

That was a powerful, insightful and intelligent commencement address. Thanks for linking it, progressoid.

[progressoid]

8. My pleasure!

[trotsky]

2. "This is particularly true among conservatives, even educated conservatives."

Back in the day, despite ideological differences, the parties could USUALLY agree on the science at least. But when the GOP decided it loved power (and money) more than reality itself, that went out the window.

[AlbertCat]

4. loved power (and money) more than reality itself,

Sounds like religion.

[goldent]

3. One problem is all the hyped-up news about science

especially medical science stories. I think there is a weekly cure for cancer.

[progressoid]

6. I like John Oliver's excellent piece on that...

[HuckleB]

5. This is awesome!

It should be required reading before one signs the new DU agreement!

[progressoid]

7. Ha!

But according to a couple posters here, We DUers who frequent the Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience forum are anti-science!